Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

treestar

(82,383 posts)

5. Would the court hold that they could vote without

Reply to onenote (Reply #3)

Thu Jan 23, 2020, 09:30 AM

Jan 2020

Attending?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

35 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

About this Senate jury... [View all] yellerpup Jan 2020 OP

I agree 100% Ohiogal Jan 2020 #1

Fair is fair! yellerpup Jan 2020 #7

I know it wasn't possible but, Sherman A1 Jan 2020 #2

Kind of a dream come true yellerpup Jan 2020 #6

They are not a "jury" and this isn't a judicial trial onenote Jan 2020 #3

Thanks for that, onenote. yellerpup Jan 2020 #4

They haven't in this instance. onenote Jan 2020 #8

Would the court hold that they could vote without treestar Jan 2020 #5

It's entirely possible that the Court would find the question nonjusticiable onenote Jan 2020 #9

What rationale could they give for that? treestar Jan 2020 #16

Whatever rationale or rationales or lack thereof subscribed to by five justices onenote Jan 2020 #23

Constitution says "two thirds of the members present" to convict Hermit-The-Prog Jan 2020 #32

It would be tough to write, with a straight face treestar Jan 2020 #35

If they are present, they can vote Coleman Jan 2020 #12

My understanding was that the Republicans in the Senate had established the rules for the trial. Arkansas Granny Jan 2020 #15

The "rules" are really "guidelines" and are intentionally wish-washy onenote Jan 2020 #24

This was a rule that was covered by the media Bayard Jan 2020 #28

The media mischaracterized it. onenote Jan 2020 #34

There should be a little device on their seats . mainstreetonce Jan 2020 #10

Good suggestion. yellerpup Jan 2020 #18

Roberts has no authority to make such a ruling. onenote Jan 2020 #25

Chief Justice Roberts isn't doing his job - he's slacking off dlk Jan 2020 #11

I was hoping for better from CJ Roberts. yellerpup Jan 2020 #19

I've never been a fan and am, sadly, not surprised dlk Jan 2020 #21

You were expecting him to do things he isn't required or allowed to do. onenote Jan 2020 #26

Who? ConstanceCee Jan 2020 #13

I'm sure we could. yellerpup Jan 2020 #20

If the rules say you may not leave and they do, they have just broken the rules. FM123 Jan 2020 #14

Breaking the rules should lead to consequences. yellerpup Jan 2020 #17

Republicans have shown the rules are only for the other guy & for suckers dlk Jan 2020 #22

See post 24: Guidelines, not rules. And wishy-washy at that. onenote Jan 2020 #27

My best hope is that our Speaker is not at all surprised at this point, and empedocles Jan 2020 #29

I am confident our Speaker is prepared. yellerpup Jan 2020 #31

Ya beat me to it: Since when are "jurors" allowed to miss trial sessions?! UTUSN Jan 2020 #30

It puzzles me how this can go unnoticed. yellerpup Jan 2020 #33